December 13, 2012

Asks David B. Agus, a USC medicine and engineering professor, in an op-ed that's #1 on the NYT "most emailed" list:

The answer, I suggest, is a two-parter: first, when the scientific data clearly and overwhelmingly demonstrate that one behavior or another can substantially reduce — or, conversely, raise — a person’s risk of disease; and second, when all of us are stuck paying for one another’s medical bills (which is what we do now, by way of Medicare, Medicaid and other taxpayer-financed health care programs).

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C.S. Lewis

Of course it's coming. The only questions are how fast and how hard? It would be hilarious if it didn't condemn our grandchildren to bureaucratic authoritarianism.

Contrast this to the left's claims that the state civil rights initiatives would remove blacks from universities and prevent mammograms. Contrast this to the left's warnings that blood would run in the streets if the assault weapons ban wasn't renewed.

If you can't figure out which side is lying you're not paying attention.

What's the ultimate end point? Will we have state mandated exercise regimes that we'll have to perform multiple times a week? Will our daily caloric intakes will be strictly monitored by our dear overlords? Will we have to fill out special requisition forms when we want to buy a beer? After all, we're all paying for each others bad habits. Apparently this is what a majority of Americans want.

Will we want people to be more healthy, or less healthy and die sooner?

Answer is we'll want them to be completely healthy until they tip some balance, then we'll want them to die as soon as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

(You can already get a sense of the complexity of the policies that will implement the above objective.)

We’ll ban everything unhealthy (including, I presume, non-monogamous sex) until a person reaches some point at which time we’ll then promote to them everything unhealthy to give them the privilege of voluntarily laying down their lives for their fellow countrymen.

The problem with centrally planned health is that we are not one size fits all clones of eachother. Some people may be obese but another person may be undergoing chemotherapy and struggling to keep weight on. Then there are cultural preferences. Food, like religion, is an extremely personal cultural experience. Separation of kitchen and state should be respected. If not, who gets the ultimate authority to decide. Science is more complex than top down consensus driven technocrats wish you to believe. Is nutritional science absolutely and incontrovertibly settled? Should politicians have any role in this? We know how smart they tend to be. I know, I know, they think they are God's gift to creation with their all seeing all knowing wisdom, but that does not make it true. The greatest concern is unintended consequences. We all know that our overlords have beautiful golden hearted intentions, unfortunately, more often than not their golden intentions create miserable outcomes. If I had to choose between starvation (a common problem for most of human history) or obesity (a modern problem due to abundance), I choose the side effects of abundance any day. We should be thanking heaven that we have eradicated true hunger in this country.

Politicians won't be involved in this. The entire point of creating the bureaucracy is insulating the apparatchiks from accountability. And it will start small: there will be financial penlties for failing the regulations. But over time these will increase to the point where it becomes effectively mandatory.

" Politicians won't be involved in this. The entire point of creating the bureaucracy is insulating the apparatchiks from accountability. And it will start small: there will be financial penlties for failing the regulations. But over time these will increase to the point where it becomes effectively mandatory."

I do a lot of my work in the healthcare field, and the attitude expressed in the article is by far the dominant view within the healthcare community, or at least among the movers and shakers.

Agus' viewpoint has been depressingly axiomatic for years in US circles and many decades in European circles. Anyone who challenges it is immediately identified as a troglodyte, or worse - a Republican - and is immediately discounted.

Will they outlaw homecooked meals to ensure that nobody is cheating? They could outlaw hostess cupcakes, but that won't stop me from making them in my own kitchen. This is where the domestic bitch in me comes out. My kitchen, my domain, no trespassers allowed. I'll stay out of your bedroom if you (you referring to leftist busybodies) stay out of my kitchen. Deal? I'll put in my mouth whatever I choose and you can dismember and suck out of your uterus as many dead offspring as you desire. Deal?

Not seeing an issue with this. Actions have consequences and if I am being asked to foot an ever increasing portion of the tax bill, then I'm all for regulating bad habits that require more and more of my earnings to cure.

It's the Golden Rule at work... him who's got the gold, makes the rules.

Once government funds the basic needs of a large portion of the population, through rent subsidies, food stamps, Obamacare, guaranteed student loans, etc., that will be the license that statists use to control all of us.

However, private behavior is no longer simply pri­vate behavior when taxes are paying everyone's health bills. Smoking, overeating, and using alcohol become quite arguably everybody's business. Under a single-payer system, government officials would arguably have a direct interest in one's personal vices, including choices of food and drink.

Further, the demand for compliance in "public health measures" might engender a relentless expan­sion of government rules, such as requiring weigh-ins for the overweight or universal blood tests for drugs and tobacco. Indeed virtually any personal activity could be viewed through the public health care lens, and government officials might decide to forbid, favor, or penalize anything that could reason­ably be seen as a matter of "public" health.

Moreover, factors that might affect health or access to health care can also come under govern­ment control. A "determinants of health perspective" means that health care provided by hospitals and clinics is only one of many factors that influence health. Health care needs that are unmet due to a lack of transportation are one example.

However:Health is also influenced by a broad range of community-based services, supports and programs, and by relationships between and among people's personal health practices and coping skills, living and working conditions, and socio-economic, political, and physical environmental contexts.Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) expanded on this concept of "our collective health." Citing pro­ductivity losses, health expenses, and national security, she endorsed a national policy to take into account social and environmental factors in design­ing neighborhoods and schools, to "control danger­ous behaviors," and to implement "required responsibility" for individual health concerns.In Britain, the annual cost to the NHS of diet-related diseases is estimated to be in excess of £15 billion. "Eventually, the UK will not be able to afford the health care made necessary by inappro­priate lifestyles and diet." Thus, the British are seriously entertaining a proposal for a "national nutrition strategy," including an independent agency with regulatory powers. Quite beyond sim­ple nutrition education, such a national approach would also consider a "fat tax" or imposing legisla­tion on the food industry to achieve the desired product development, marketing, and pricing goals. This might include "using government purchasing power to expand the market for fresh healthy foods while counteracting the current sub­sidies supporting the ingredients in high fat/sugar/ salt products" and placing restrictions on "the mar­keting of junk food to children."

"In addition, television shows and Internet sites would be altered "to ensure the support of active, healthy lifestyles." This might also entail com­pulsory consumption of a specified diet or, as sug­gested in the NHS, population-wide use of a "Polypill" or even a "Polymeal" to reduce the national rate of heart disease. Expansion of govern­ment control over "transport and rural develop­ment policies" was also recommended to increase the level of physical activity.[191]Indeed, a program of government surveillance of all children is being introduced in Britain: "a £224 million database tracking all 12 million children in England and Wales from birth." Doctors, schools, and the police will have to alert the database for a wide variety of concerns, including information on whether children are eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. If a child fails to meet state targets, this could start an investigation. The infor­mation gathered "would include subjective judg­ments such as 'Is the parent providing a positive role model?', as well as sensitive information such as a parent's mental health."

"The political demand for public regulation of private behavioral choices may be expanded to meet certain economic targets as well. In Britain and Canada, for example, options for health care such as renal dialysis are restricted by age.[193]Traditional medical ethics are likely to be subor­dinated to political fashions. For example, euthana­sia is often promoted by its champions as a last resort to alleviate suffering, but the Netherlands already has moved "from assisted suicide to eutha­nasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to nonvol­untary and involuntary euthanasia."[194] Such "ter­mination without request or consent" has been applied to Dutch infants as well. The concern has been that public health system rationing may exert pressure not just to limit spending on certain indi­viduals, but also, either subtly or overtly, to coerce them to be euthanized."

Actually ... this is here now. I have one of those "Cadillac Plans" supplementing Medicare that will be taxed 40% under full implementation...which I cite only to illuminate what is now showing up in the best of plans.

All ya'all be cure to read your latest health care policy statements vis a vis health maintenance issues. You will note that the age 75 is cited frequently as the maximum for most tests.

They don't say it exactly that way, just cite a range for various tests and exams applicability...which all top out at the magic number "75".

I presume I will either be healed of all maladies miraculously in 5 years from now, or I will be "allowed" to expire from whatever gets me first after age 75.

You will not be able to keep the fatties from their cakes and fried treats. Get used to the idea of foregoing your knee replacement necessitated by over use to keep your weight in check and your heart in good shape. The money for that will go to keep the fatties alive.

Following up, right now we cannot deny treatment (at least in ER's) for lack of money. But in future you may be denied treatment for lack of good behaviour. Irony aside, I'll leave it to others to decide which is the more morally repugnant.

The Nanny State is pulling up her gurdle about ready to tell us that our (smoking, drinking, eating) is costing "society" (as if we who do this are outside of this magical realm) and we have pay money to someone as compensation for our lack of restraint. Well, F you to both Nanny and the Professor. If you recognize how much health care cost is sucked up by cyclists, joggers, climbers, gym rats and the myriad group of middle aged youth chasers than fine. How about a gym/sports tax for everyone that blows out a knee and runs up the cost of healthcare?

Yeah, it's called FUD. Seems to be the specialty of the day, every day here on Althouse.

Are you willing to post a bond guaranteeing that such regulations will not happen? How about just stating it for the record:

"I absolutely promise that no regulations will further restrict personal liberty in the name of socialized medicine. If I am wrong, my credibility shall be severely called into question for all time. Love, phx."

Michael said... Pragmatist. Aaha, a self identified fattie. A believer that our health costs are skyrocketing because of the health nuts.

Note how changing the normal decision cycle iterrupts the normal reaction. We normally accept responsibility and control concurrently. But merely by accepting the responsibility ahead of the authority the government has removed the appropriateness of responsibility from the analysis. And once you start with responsibility as a given the control element seems so much more reasonable. So fewer people even try to understand whether the complete transaction is a good idea, some even attack those who do.

Don't think for a second they didn't understand this. We're marks: they offered us something for "free", but we had to pay for shipping. Then a small down payment. Then an unexpected customs duty. Then a tax levy. There always an excuse, then one day our bank account will be emptied while we sleep.

Refusing to step out of your role as lead sniper huh? Nothing to offer but attacks? That's ok, I knew you were incapable of participating honestly.

Interestingly though, David B. Agus doesn't agree with you. If it had already started there wouldn't be a question of when to start. How do you deal with such discordances? Do you tell yourself he's a right winger too? Do you pretend not to notice? Or do the word games you hide behind only apply to Althouse commenters?

Perhaps abortions should be mandatory. It is cheaper to kill those little burdens than to bring more human parasites into the world, right? Not to mention all those fat moms. Nothing like motherhood to turn a skinny girl into a fatty. Ban babies.

Refusing to step out of your role as lead sniper huh? Nothing to offer but attacks?

Lead sniper? Really?! That's pretty cool. Did all you righties vote on that? Who came in second?

Interestingly though, David B. Agus doesn't agree with you. If it had already started there wouldn't be a question of when to start.

If "it" is, as you say, "Government regulation of people's habits in the name of good health," then it is here. Motorcycle helmet laws. Drug laws. I used to love my lead tinsel hanging from a Xmas tree.

Do you tell yourself he's a right winger too?

I have no idea who he is or what he thinks. I'm not interested that much either. I'm chatting with you guys, er, sniping.

Why don't you just come out and say "Why do I have to share this space with people who think differently than I do?"

@Carrie, we could legalize gay marriage, then mandate marriage for any sex act. If the government has the power to control the food we eat, then certainly it would be no big deal to control our sex lives to prevent the spread of STDS.

Since studies show that People who pray and attend church regularly are healthier in both mind and body, this should become mandatory. (forget about the silly 1st amendment. This is about helping people, which should trump the constitution, of course).

mccullough said...So much for legalized marijuana and anal sex. ====================And young black males that may face scanning sensors deployed in streets to detect if they have guns or not.If the unhealthy lifestyle black is caught - 20 years, no appeal. To cut down health costs for themselves and society.For all the recent Love of All THings Gay pimped by liberals and progressive jews running the media - laws that ban all sex outside a legal marriage will target gay anal sex as a prime disease vector costing society a great deal.

phx said... If "it" is, as you say, "Government regulation of people's habits in the name of good health," then it is here. Motorcycle helmet laws. Drug laws. I used to love my lead tinsel hanging from a Xmas tree.

Most people are capable of differentiating between small intrusions and large, and between differing levels of personal behavior. People advocating helmet use have a limited number of recommendations, but health is unlimited. Further the recommendations by doctors are far more personal. It's really not tough to understand the difference is so vast they aren't very comparable. But that would require an attempt to understand on your part, and the single tactic you and the other leftists seem to enjoy most is intentionally misunderstanding in order to support an insult.

Why don't you just come out and say "Why do I have to share this space with people who think differently than I do?"

Mostly because that's not what I think, which is obvious to anyone of moderate comprehension since there are very few people here with my belief set. My question is why would people value their time so little their best use of it is interfering with others?

I have no idea who he is or what he thinks. I'm not interested that much either. I'm chatting with you guys, er, sniping.

He's the guy that wrote the article. If you were interested in a discussion rather than insults you'd know that. But then if that were true you wouldn't dodge my point that the characterization you attacked as right wing ignorance is in fact from a left wing bureaucrat. Interpreting what you read in order to further your insults seems to be your only talent.

Peanuts should be banned everywhere for everyone because my daughter has a peanut allergy. Why not? If we are going to collectively punish everyone because some people are fat, then everyone should be forced to give up peanuts because my daughter could die if she eats them. Individuality is such a neanderthal concept, everything is for the collective good. Get with it people.

Garage Mahal ... why do you expect Tim to elaborate on Diabetes when your comment about someone not knowing anything about it didn't elaborate either?

My brother had the severest form of diabetes for most of his life, and there was a continual issue with fat, however he wasn't always fat per se...but he started that way and ended that way at age 55.

You hint that fatness isn't related to diabetes, or vice versa, but you don't explain that. My experience observing my brother go through his end of days that lasted a couple years where fat seemed to blossom uncontrollably, hypertension also erupted, bones didn't heal, wounds didn't heal, kidney's transplanted began rapid failure after 20 years success, liver became toxic and finally dementia took over his life.

Excess fat was a problem for him his entire life from about age 5 until 55. Very hard for me to not see some connection between obesity and diabetes. But I'm not a doctor.

We should have ended redistributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation) with "promote the general Welfare". Instead, people elect to exchange their liberty for submission with benefits. Never noticing that the election was made under false pretenses, since the benefits were offered to treat symptoms rather than address causes.

Morsel said: "I respect those who respect others. Those who do nothing but attack can expect the same in return."

I had a perfectly respectable presence in this thread as the loyal opposition until you got your panties all twisted trying to explain how we don't yet have, as you said, "Government regulation of people's habits in the name of good health."

Of course we already have that, and if that's all that is meant by "It's coming! Look out!" then it is just FUD from the righties.

If there's more to it then there should be no problem explaining what is meant by "Get ready! It's coming!" That's all I asked for.

Just because you have a problem with that doesn't mean I'm being insulting.

Now I respect plenty of people here, including a number of righties and I'm perfectly comfortable naming who they are.

You must mean that you respect people who respect YOU.

That's fine, but all the tea in China won't get me to respect your ideas as long as you childishly mispell my name when you disagree with me, for example, or use the language you so often do with those who disagree with you.

Type two Diabetes is one of the end results of Metabolic Syndrome. Type one is caused by unknown reasons, perhaps a virus, the pancreas isn't functioning, whereas in type two the pancreas functions for quite sometime, it's the receptor cells that don't accept the insulin molecules. In type two there is too much floating insulin, in type one there is not enough.

Obesity may be caused or be the cause of Metabolic Syndrome, it's not known conclusively from what I've read. Obesity has nothing to do with type one diabetes.

Have Agus and supporters of this particular argment really thought this one through?

Remember those claims that birth control costs $18,000? When there's a totally free way to change your conduct and avoid that entire $18,000 in costs, isn't it morally incumbent on you to take it? And, under Professor Agus's view, doesn't it become the "moral and social duty" of the rest of us, to start -- at minimum -- applying social pressure on those who need $18,000 of ludicrously expensive birth control?

I hate to tell these people but the leading aggregate cause of high health care costs is pregnancy and childbirth. Why must all of us bear the costs of the selfish few who can't control their reproductive urges?

I hate to tell these people but the leading aggregate cause of high health care costs is pregnancy and childbirth. Why must all of us bear the costs of the selfish few who can't control their reproductive urges?

Garage, in common usage, when people say "diabetes" they are generally referring to Type II, since that is the fastest-growing epidemic in this country. Juvenile Diabetes a/k/a Type I is hardly germane to this discussion since few youngsters hang out here with the trolls and wieners. And few trolls who have Type 1 live to be as curmudgeonly as the people who post here. Therefore, just assume the writer who says “diabetes” and relates it to overconsumption knows at least as much as you do about the disease.

You both say obesity has nothing to do with Type 1 diabetes. At the same time you both acknowledge the cause is not fully known. Okay, if there is a credible study somewhere that fully eliminates obesity as a contributing factor, even though not the direct cause per se, please cite it for me to read.

I ask because my brother had Type 1 diabetes, and died from it and/or its effects at 55 years of age. Prior to on-set in his youth he was obese, and with onset his hunger increased while he lost weight drastically. Later in life he again had issues with obesity, and none of his doctors, including the renal failure research physicians at the University of Minnesota, ever dismissed it...rather they directed him on how to control it, and considered it related to his other cascading physiological failures.

My experience is merely anecdotal, but I have a hard time understanding blanket statements that obesity has nothing [what-so-ever] to do with Diabetes, of either type...when I witnessed connections with a severe Type 1 case up close.

Now I respect plenty of people here, including a number of righties and I'm perfectly comfortable naming who they are.

You must mean that you respect people who respect YOU.

That's fine, but all the tea in China won't get me to respect your ideas as long as you childishly mispell my name when you disagree with me, for example, or use the language you so often do with those who disagree with you.

Really? I misspelled your name because I disagreed with you? Or because it's a gentle way to urge you to spell mine correctly next time without making a big deal of it?

And I note you have no compunction defending those who use similar language to mine - as long as they do so against non-lefties. Why make up standards to suit the occasion? You're only fooling yourself. No enemies to the left!

Okay, if there is a credible study somewhere that fully eliminates obesity as a contributing factor, even though not the direct cause per se, please cite it for me to read.

Type I is an autoimmune disease that attacks and destroys the beta cells in your pancreas that produce insulin. You are completely insulin dependent for the rest of your life, no matter what food you eat. To my knowledge there has never been a link that diet causes Type 1.

Troll wants everyone to specify for him, when he is incapable of specifying for anyone, ever.

One can only begin to imagine all of the ways that government healthcare will pit us against each other. Fat vs. thin, old vs. young, child bearing families vs. DINKS. Eat a salad fatty! Give that old lady a pill and tell her to shut up. Tie that fucking breeders tubes. It's for the common good.

I'd rather have a health care system in which you risk the chance of losing your house to cure your kids cancer than one in which other people decide your worth and care is rationed accordingly.

You defend by attacking. I've also compiled a complete list of all the leftists you've criticized for uncollegial language:

.

At least you dropped the name misspelling. Doesn't it suck when you make such a big deal out of nothing only to discover you're the dick?

Marshal arguing with you is like falling into a mire of quicksand - every move you make or everything you say sucks you further and further into Marshal's patented bog of bullshit.

You say I defend people who I never defended at all, and I ask what you mean. You can't answer that of course so you say "You defend by attacking." What does that bullshit even mean, Marshal? Nevermind. I don't want to know and you're just going to get me bogged down with your nonsense further.

As far as the mispelling of the names goes, true I accidentally mispelled your name. Spelling/grammar is not a forte of mine as anyone who reads my posts knows. I sincerely did not know that's why you were mispelling my name. I was wrong, I thought you were trying to piss me off. But your actual reason for mispelling my name is just. as. petty.

Diane Faustman has promising research that could cure Type 1 using BCG -- the old turboculosis vaccine --which is safe, been around for decades, and cheap. Which is probably why her research isn't being funded like it should. People with diabetes generates billions of profits. Gotta keep them sick.

Your inability to make sense is astonishing. You say my misspelling one letter in response to your doing so is petty, yet you intentionally mangled my name for the same infraction. If my response was petty, what was yours? Do you hold yourself to any standard at all?

I carefully worded my question(s) vis a vis diet and obesity and Type 1 Diabetes to say "contributory", not causal as far as we know today.

My brother became Type 1 in his youth, and he was obese in his youth. Enough so that when teasing him we called in "bubble gut" or "jelly belly." [ Some regrets about that now] He lost a lot of weight suddenly and the malaise took over ... totally insulin dependent from then on. Later he became fat, nearing obese, again and hypertension developed, followed by renal failure, etc.

All I am saying is that although obesity is not the clinical cause of Type 1 Diabetes per what we know today...it is foolish to dismiss another known cause of ill health as non-contributory.

Everyone can have their opinion, of course, and none of them will help the brother that died 10 years ago now....just about everything that could fail, did, and finally his heart.

I guess we could say diabetes didn't kill him, cardiac arrest did so. That would be equally foolish if seek to understand all of it.

3. Her proposed treatment is being tested in several other labs w/ funds provided by the JDRF.

Of course, I can't claim to be so knowledgeable about the productivity of additional funding to Dr. Faustman's research vs. other areas of investigation that I can state whether or not it's being funded at an appropriate level.

Meanwhile, paradoxically we are living longer despite being "less healthy". I guess maybe that means diagnostics and treatments for the various forms of cardiovascular disease have improved so much that we can afford to be less healthy and still live a long time.

@Nonapod- I am not sure how they calculated "living longer", but it is possible that killing most of the retarded and sickly babies before they are born may have the effect of increasing the life expectancy average. Actually, if that is the case, we may be living shorter lives than before, it would just create the illusion that we are living longer. Just a thought, not based on the data.

Micro-regulations are coming, alright, and now Obama has the means to ensure our compliance. Your credit card statements, online purchases, gun purchases, overseas travel, prescriptions, you name it. It's all there for the government's sifting and sniffing. No warrant required.

I hate to tell these people but the leading aggregate cause of high health care costs is pregnancy and childbirth. Why must all of us bear the costs of the selfish few who can't control their reproductive urges?

Source, please.

And, well, if one is going to be collectivist about it (and note that there's no inherent reason why "all of us" should have to pay "the selfish few"'s healthcare costs), one should remember that that very breeding is what makes new suckers to support "expensive" healthcare costs in the future.

It's almost like maybe the problem here is not "breeding" but "collective payment for healthcare"...

Lawyer Mom said... Micro-regulations are coming, alright, and now Obama has the means to ensure our compliance. Your credit card statements, online purchases, gun purchases, overseas travel, prescriptions, you name it. It's all there for the government's sifting and sniffing. No warrant required.

It makes you wonder where that consitutional right to privacy went doesn't it? It's almost like the left didn't really care about privacy, they were just making shit up to justify the policy they wanted.

Luckily our Supreme Court has too much integrity to do that again. I mean, they would never use a subterfuge like diversity to allow race preferences.

But everyone else should be aware that what you're saying is nonsense.

None of it is nonsense.

1. There is no mechanism by which the people who you think are making "billions in profits" can prevent other people from funding Denise Faustman's (or anyone else's) research.

Did I say people could prevent other people from funding Faustman's research? No. It's my opinion that orgs like JDRF would rather have patients "live" with their disease than see a real cure.

3. Her proposed treatment is being tested in several other labs w/ funds provided by the JDRF.

You have a link to this? I'm pretty sure JDRF hasn't contributed anything to Faustman. JDRF has gone out of their way to discredit her research. One of the reasons JDRF will never get another penny from me.

garage mahal said...Did I say people could prevent other people from funding Faustman's research?

You claim that her research isn't funded properly b/c the treatment uses an old vaccine that can't make money for "someone"--which any reasonable person interprets as referring to evil Big Pharma. But anyone who thinks this is a worthwhile line of inquiry can contribute by clicking on a link at Faustman's website. Sort of like how the Lee Iacocca Foundation gave her lab $11 million.

As I said, her lab also gets federal funding. Which I found out by spending a couple of minutes googling.

But JDRF did approve grants to three competing teams, including one led by an author of thecritical letter, to attempt to replicate Dr. Faustman's work. Now all three are announcing they haveconfirmed the aspect of her study that is the basis for a clinical trial planned at Harvard.

And rather than fling reckless conspiracy charges around, you might consider why JDRF was previously skeptical about BCG. Here's the conclusion of a study published 7 years ago supported by JRDF funding:

No evidence was found that BCG vaccination could prevent against β-cell–damaging processes leading to type 1 diabetes in genetically at-risk children. The findings do not suggest that BCG vaccination will affect the overall incidence of type 1 diabetes

To their credit, it appears that the JDRF is willing to reconsider its initial conclusions.

@Sigivald- Molly should not be allowed to mooch social security payments and Medicare funding from my children when she's a dried up old maid. The selfish non-breeders are using other people's children (it's the same concept if you have a pension of any type, new blood is needed to feed in or it all collapses, our entire way of life is one great big intergenerational pyramid scheme). Users.

“Neither the State nor the federal government ‘promised, explicitly or implicitly,’ that provider reimbursement rates would never change,”

Do tell. Heh heh. Now za federal court says flat out what you think is in there isn't...Pelosi lied, eh?

Let's see...a push to raise retirement (Medicare and Social Security)eligibility up to age 70 and clear inference that health maintenance coverage isn't necessary after age 75 (check your most recent health insurance policy statements).

SSA Retirement has been inched upwards to 67 already, taking away a substantial part of the premium you would have gotten if waiting until you are 70 to retire, as well as "saving" for 2 years of payouts you have paid in to get. Another cost savings will be when the government moves "retirement" to age 70, thus taking all the original premium and "saving" 5 years of payouts.

You've got 5 years of "retirement" and semi-decent health care in your future. If you are in the top 2%...whoopee, you'll get by ... if not...good luck. Enjoy.

No promised it would not change and that changes wouldn't be to your disadvantage. Right?

Whot? You thought this retirement and health care fandango was to help the less well off, that the liberal progressive politicians had your best interest at heart?